LIBRARY OF CONGRESS. 

PRESENTED BY- 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. 





'.%D 




THE BIBLE IN THE PUBLIC SCHOOLS. 



PROCEEDINGS AND ADDRESSES 



AT THE — 



MASS MEETING, PIKE'S MUSIC HALL, 

Tuesday Evening, September 28, 1869; 



A SKETCH OF THE ANTI-BIBLE MOVEMENT. 



PUBLISHED BY THE COMMITTEE IN OHARaE OP THE MEETING, 




CINCINNATI: 

GAZETTE STEAM BOOK AND JOB PRINTING HOUSE. 
1869. 



THE BIBLE IN THE SCHOOLS. 



The following brief statement of the Constitution of the 
Board of Education of Cincinnati, and of the proceedings of 
the Board in regard to the exclusion of the Bible from the 
Public Schools of the city, will enable those not already familiar 
with the facts to consider intelligently the points at issue. 
The Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati is com- 
posed of forty members — two for each ward of the city. The 
Board for 1868-9 may be classified, as to the religious opinions 
of the members, as follows : 

Jews 2 

Protestants 18 

Roman Catholics 10 

Others: 10 

Total 40 

On the 6th of September, 1869, at a regular meeting of the 
Board, Mr. Eauch (Catholic), from the JSTinth Ward, under a 
suspension of the rules, offered the following resolutions : 

" Whereas, There is a desire on the part of various mem- 
bers of the Catholic Church to unite certain schools, under the 
charge of the Church, with the Public Schools, and to place 
such schools under the control of the Board of Education ; 
therefore, 

" Resolved^ That a Committee of Conference, consisting of 
five members, be appointed by the Chair, who shall report at 
an early day to this Board upon what basis said schools can be 
consolidated with the Public Schools. Also, 

" Resolved, That the President and Vice President be added 
to this Committee." 



2 

The resolution, having received a second, Mr. S. A. Miller, 
from the Seventeenth Ward, offered the following amendment; 
it was seconded by Mr. Joseph P. Carbery (Catholic), from 
the Sixth Ward : 

" Resolved, That religious instruction, and the reading of reli- 
gious books, including the Holy Bible, are prohibited in the 
Common Schools of Cincinnati, it being the true object and in- 
tent of this rule to allow the children of the parents of all sects 
and opinions, in matters of faith and Avorship, to enjoy alike 
the benefit of the Common School fund. 

" Resolved, That so much of the regulations on the Course of 
Study and Text Books in the Intermediate and District Schools 
(page 213, annual report) as reads as follows : ' The opening 
exercises in every department shall commence by reading a 
portion of the Bible, by or under the direction of the teacher, 
and appropriate singing by the pupils,' be repealed." 

Mr. Francis Ferry (Protestant), from the Sixteenth Ward, 
offered the following amendment, which was seconded by Mr. 
John P. Story (Protestant) : 

" Resolved, That the children of Catholic parents be invited 
to attend the public schools under the control of this Board." 

Upon motion, it was ordered that the resolution and amend- 
ments be printed, and made the special order for Monday even- 
ing, September 13th. 

At the meeting of September 13th, the chamber of the City 
Council, in which the meetings of the Board are held, was 
crowded with citizens. The proceedings of the previous meet- 
ing having been published in the city papers, the following 
resolutions, adopted at the Clinton Street Reformed Presbyte- 
rian Church, on Sunday evening September 12th, and addressed 
to the Board, as a communication, were read by the Clerk : 

"Whereas, The Bible is the revealed will of God to man, 
the light of the world, and the lamp that lights up the pathway 
of man through the tomb to heaven ; and, 

" Whereas, It is the basis of all just and pure laws ; and, 

"Whereas, Some members of the Board of Public Schools 
of Cincinnati, Ohio, have proposed a resolution, in their official 
action, for the prohibition of the reading of the Bible as a part 
of the means of Education in the Public Schools in the said 
city of Cincinnati; be it therefore 

"■Resolved, That the mover of that motion, and all those 
members of the said School Board who may have favored the 
same, are respectfully requested to resign their seats therein 
immediately. 



After discussion, it was voted that this oommunication be not 
received. 

A communication was read from J. H. Feldwisch, of the Ger- 
man Eeformed Church, corner of Elm and Fifteenth streets, 
stating that at a meeting of various Sabbath Schools, numbering 
about 2,500 children, it was unanimously resolved that the 
Board of Education be respectfully requested to make no 
change in the usage hitherto practiced in the Public Schools of 
Cincinnati ; that the exercises of each day be commenced by 
the reading of the Holy Scripture, and by appropriate singing. 
On motion, the communication was received and filed. 

The following communication was also read : 

" Cincinnati, 13th September, 1869. 
" The undersigned, in the interests, as he believes, of justice, 
charity, and patinotism, will be most happy to meet in confer- 
ence on the vexed school question a committee appointed by 
the School Board of this city. He is perfectly satisfied with 
the Catholic Schools as they now exist, but he thinks, as every 
honest man may, that it is unjust to impose restrictions, suck 
as in conscience they and their natural guardians must ever 
resist, on the rights of Catholic children, to the benefits of the 
District Schools. He is quite prepared for a vote against the 
exclusion of Sectarianism from the Public Schools. The pub- 
lic will then see who are the exclusionists and ,the intolerant. 
" MoBt respectfully, 

" J. B. PURCELL, 
"Archbishop of Cincinnati." 

The communication was, on motion, received and filed. 

The following protests against the removal of the Bible from 
the Public Schools were, on motion of Mr, Vickers, received 
and placed on file : 

First Ward— E. T. Carson and 383 others. 
Second "Ward — John J). Minor and 558 others. 
Third Ward— John Shillito and 405 others. 
Fourth Ward — John F. Torrence and 518 others. 
Fifth Ward— Peter Neff and 406 others. 
Sixth Ward— E. M. Bishop and 473 others. 
Seventh Ward — C. W. Starbuck and 534 others. 
Eighth Ward— W. E. Kidd and 267 others. 
Ninth Ward— H. P. Deikmier and 279 others. 
Tenth Ward— J. S. Gillespie and 294 others. 
Eleventh Ward — Samuel Flickingcr and 476 others. 



Twelfth Ward— C. H. Taylor and 281 others. 
Thirteenth Ward — S. F. Covington and 505 others. 
Fourteenth Ward — L. Sheaff and 668 others. 
Fifteenth Ward— J. W. Wiley and 569 others. 
Sixteenth Ward — Theo. Baur and 448 others. 
Seventeenth Ward — B. F. Brannan and 535 others. 
Eighteenth Ward — Thomas H. Foulds and 557 others. 
Nineteenth Ward — W. F. Thorns and 464 others. 
Twentieth Ward— W. P. Beddle and 73 others. 
Total number of names, 8,713. 

The Board went into Committee of the Whole, and Mr. Car- 
bery moved that when the Committee rise it report in favor 
of adopting Mr. Eauch's resolutions, which provide for the 
appointment of a Committee of Conference. 

After discussion, Mr. Vickers moved that the Committee rise 
and report in substance Mr. Carbery's resolution. 

Mr. Frazer offered the following as an amendment : 

"Whereas, It has been declared to the Board by certain 
members hereof, who represent themselves to be members of 
the Eoman Catholic Church, that there is a desire on the part 
of various members of that Church to unite certain schools 
under its charge with the Public Schools, and to place such 
Church Schools under the control of the Board of Education ; 
and, 

"Whereas, The free institutions of this country can be per- 
petuated only by the suppression of all caste and exclusive- 
ness, whether religious or otherwise; and, 

"Whereas, Our Government has merely established and 
provided for a system of Public Schools in which children of 
all citizens may be educated, and, by thus commingling in in- 
fancy and growing up together to manhood, learn that mutual 
respect for and appreciation of each other which is essential in 
a government where all are practically free and equal ; 

^^ Eesohed, That the Public Schools of this city, while under 
wise rules abstaining from all recognition of religious sect or 
training, do provide for the children of all religious jDcrsua- 
sions in our midst, as well as those of no religion, and are now, 
as they always have been, accessible to all white children not 
less than six years of age, who may reside in the city. 

'^Resolved, That this Board earnestly desires that all children 
in the city be taught in the Public Schools, and that we will 
therefore most heartily welcome and provide for the children 
now belonging to any or all parochial or other schools, 
whether of Eoman Catholics or others. 

''Resolved, That the school houses and property belonging to 



Eoman Ctitliolics, or others Avhich may be needed and adapted 
for Public Schools, shall, when offered by the owners to this 
Board, be bought or leased at a fair valuation to be determined 
by five freeholders selected and appointed by the Superior 
Court of this city, which school houses and property, after they 
shall come into possession, shall be imder the entire control of 
this Board, the same as all other of its school houses and 
j)roperty." 

The motion that the Committee now rise was carried. 
Mr. Frazer's amendment was then rejected by 22 to 12, and 
Mr. Eauch's original resolutions adoi^ted by 25 yeas to 9 nays. 
The President named as the Committee: Messrs. Eauch, Eckel, 
Carbery, Ballauf and Miller, and to these were added, by the 
terms of the second resolution, Messrs. Wehmer and Frazer, 
President and Vice-President of the Board. 

At the meeting of the Board, Monday evening, September 
20, a communication was received from the officers of a meet- 
ing of the American Protestant Association, inclosing a pre- 
amble and resolutions adopted at said meeting, asking the 
Board of Education to delay their action in regard to the ex- 
clusion of the Bible from the Public Schools of Cincinnati. 
On motion, the comm.unication was received and filed. 
Mr. Frazer presented a remonstrance against the exclusion 
of the Bible, signed by Frank McCord and 1,011 others. Ec- 
ceived and filed. 

Mr. Frazer presented a remonstrance to the same effect 
from Rev. W. Grier and others. Eeceiyed and filed. 

The Committee on Conference, appointed at the last meeting 
of the Board, made the following report : 

"Clerk's Office, City Buildings, j 
"Cincinnati, September 20, 1869. j 
"Your Committee, appointed to confer with Archbishop Pur- 
cell with regard to taking such steps as may enable the chil- 
dren of Catholic parents to attend the Public Schools, beg to 
report the annexed as the present ultimatum of the Catholic 
authorities, and which is as follows, marked 'Paper No. 1.' 
He further states that he will nse every effort, whilst in Eomc, 
to procure such modification of the rule as may remove all ob- 
stacles to their attendance. 
"By order of the Committee. 

"JAS. P. CAEBEEY, Secretary." 



6 

^' Your Committee, in view of the above facts, ask to "be con- 
tinued. 

" F. W. EATJCH, ^ 
" H. ECKEL, ^ 
" S. A. MILLEE, 
"H. L. WEHMER, 
" A. L. FEAZER, 
" LOUIS BALLAUF." 

[PajDer No. 1.] 

" The entire government of public schools in which Catholic 
youth are educated can not be given over to the civil power. 

"We, as Catholics, can not approve of that system of educa- 
tion for youth which is apart from instruction in the Catholic 
faith and. the teaching of the Church. 

" If the School Board can offer anything in conformity with 
these principles, as has been done in England, France, Canada, 
Prussia, and other countries where the rights of conscience in 
the matter of education have been fully recognized, I am pre- 
pared to give it respectful consideration. 

•' JOHN B. PUECELL, Archbishop of Cincinnati. 

" Cincinnati, September 18, 1869." 

It was, thereupon, moved that the report be accepted and the 
Committee continued, and, as an amendment, that the Com- 
mittee be discharged. The amendment was adopted, and the 
report received, and the Committee discharged, by a vote of 22 
yeas and 14 nays. 

In the Cincinnati Commercial of Tiiursday, September 23, 
18G9, Mr. Cai'bery published a letter, dated September 22, in 
reply to certain attacks on him, contained in the Catholic 
Telegraph of September 15th, and of September 22d. He quoted 
from the issue of the 15th as follows : 

" The remarks of Mr Carbery in last evening's pi'oceedings 
of the School Board, if correctly reported in Tuesday's Com- 
mercial, deserve, and wo think they will receive, the contempt 
of many of his colleagues, and of all good Catholics. We are 
far from agreeing with him, or any one else, that there arc 
thousands of Catholic children anxious to avail themselves of 
the advantages of the Common Schools. All we Catholics want 
is our share of the public money. On this sure basis, all our 
difficulties could be j)romptly settled." 

He also referred to the article in the issue of the 22d. in 
which it was charged that he, being a Catholic, " sneered at au- 
thority, and criticised its acts in a gross and disrespectful man- 



ner." Mr. Carbery then proceeded to set forth a few facts, to 
explain his course in the School Board, as follows : 

'- It will be necessary for me to go back a few weeks, when I 
first became aware that certain gentlemen of the Board, with 
the full approbation of the leading editor of the Telegraph, 
were negotiating for a basis on which the Catholic Schools 
mio-ht be turned over to the ' exclusive control of the Board 
of Education.' Mr. Kelley waited on me at my place of busi- 
ness, soliciting my signature. I pointed out to that gentleman, 
on the spot, certain leaders in the Telegraph on the subject ot 
our Common Schools, in which the writer stigmatized them as 
' preparations for Atheism and Infidelity,' and in strong gen- 
eral terms denounced the whole system. I enjoined him to be 
most careful in taking any steps Avithout being in possession oi 
the most satisfactory authority from the Catholic side. 

" To these remarks ho responded by stating that he had 
Father Edward Purcell's signature, and that the latter gen- 
tleman was so anxious to consummate the transfer that he had 
proposed to make a present of the fee simple of the schools on 
the Board assuming their direction. 

" These assurances, amazing as they were to mo, decided nie 
to sign the paper presented. That paper, in its very first arti- 
cle, provided for handing over all the schools to the control of 
the Board, on either lease or by purchase, on certain condi- 
tions, one of which was that, 

" ' 1. No religious instruction whatever should be given dur- 
ing school hours, nor should the reading of any religious book 
be permitted. 

'"2. That Catholic teachers should be employed to teach 
Catholic children.' 

" There were others, but the above are the vital ones. 
" The next ftict in order of time and interest was a meeting 
arranged between fifteen members of the School Board and 
certain of the Catholic clergy. This meeting was held. Fathers 
Purcell, Halley, Bonner and''Gilmour— the latter then, and now, 
of Dayton— being present. On the part of the Board, the 
President, Mr. Eckel, Dr. Christin, Messrs. Theuerkauf, Wis- 
newski, Kicking, Brunsman, Eauch, Krieger, Kelley, Temple, 
myself, and perhaps others whom I forget. Mr. Wehmer was 
called to the Chair, and Mr. Kicking acted as Secretary. Mr. 
Eckel explained fully and clearly how far the Board could go 
under the law organizing the Common Schools of the State, 
and in discussing the propositions from the other side to ap- 
point none but Catholic teachers for Catholic children, affirmed 
at once and decisively, that such an arrangement was impossi- 
ble. Father Purcell, there and then, withdrew this stipulation 
on his part, and said that the suspension of the Bible reading, 
etc., in the public schools, was such a step in a liberal direc- 



tion that he Avas willing* to meet the Board at ouce. To the 
proposition securing the use of the houses on Saturday and 
Sunday, there was a promise by the President, ratified by all 
the members present, to use every effort to have such an un- 
derstanding carried out. 

" From this whole arrangement Father Gilmour decidedly 
dissented, alleging that the Board was really conceding very 
little, whilst the Catholics appeared to be giving up everything. 
I took this ground myself, asking to be informed 'If the old 
ground occupied by the Church on the school question was 
now relinquished.' To these objections Father Purcell, being 
called upon, said in a few words that he was grateful to the 
gentlemen for their liberality, and had no doubt that the Arch- 
bishop (then absent) would approve of everything which he 
had done. Subsequently I Avas called upon to attend the 
Archbishop, and, together with Messrs. Eauch, O'lSTeil and 
Temple, saw and discussed the above propositions. The Arch- 
bishop stated then that he was willing to make the experiment 
with one boys' school ; and, with this assurance, we withdrew. 
All this is very tedious, but shows, I think, unmistakably, a 
desire of their natural and clerical guides to got the Catholic 
children into the public schools. It was this feeling on their 
parts, shown on all occasions when I came in contact with 
them, which so fully possessed mc, and explains the eagerness 
with which I worked for a Committee of Conference." 

Tuesday evening, September 29, a mass meeting of citizens 
was held at Pike's Opera House. Notice of the meeting had 
been given in all the Protestant churches of the city, on Sun- 
day, and in the city papers. The meeting was the largest that 
had been held in the city since the war. At an early hour the 
seats were all filled. Still the people streamed in, until nearly 
every foot of standing room in the vast hall was occupied, and 
yet they came. It is estimated that fifteen hundred persons 
went away, unable even to gain admission. The Cincinnati 
Gazette of the 29tli contained in its editorial columns the fol- 
lowing reference to the meeting : 

"J^o meeting of such significance as that of last night, at 
Pike's Hall, has been held in this city since the great war. In 
numbers; in deep, intense feeling; in earnest, bounding en- 
thusiasm, and, moi'e than all, in character, it was one of the 
most remarkable that ever assembled in Cincinnati. It was 
inspired by the same spirit that used to be manifested in the 
early days of the rebellion, when Democrat and Eepublican 
lost all thought of old antagonism in their'supreme devotion to 
the imperiled nation. Men forgot their ancient and their 
present difPerenees, just as then, and they joined, hand in 



9 

baud, to testify to their appreciation of the importanoo to th« 
Republic of the Bible. No one who was present and took not» 
of the spirit of the meeting, and then of the standing and 
character of the audience, could possibly doubt how the city 
is feeling on this question." 

The Daily Commercial said : 

" A large and earnest meeting of citizens opposed to the 
proposition to exclude the Bible from the public schools was 
held last evening at Pike's Music Hall. The hall was crowded 
to its utmost capacity. The main hall, both galleries, and all 
the aisles and lobbies were densely packed, the rush being so 
great that hundreds of people failed to gain even standing 
room. The audience was composed of all classes of society, 
rich and poor, high and low. Nearly every religious denom- 
ination was represented. It was one of the most substantial, 
intelligent and orderly meetings that has been held in thi^ 
city for a long time. The stage was occupied by the ministers 
of the vai'ious churches of the city, prominent among whom 
Avas the venerable Bishop Mcllvaine." 

The Daily Enquirer spoke of the meeting as follows : 

'' The mass meeting of the friends of the Bible in Pike's 
Music Hall last night was a very large and enthusiastic assem- 
bly of earnest people, who seemed to have their whole hearts 
iu what they believe to be the good work of protecting th« 
Bible from the assaults of its enemies. Before eight o'clock 
the floor of the hall was filled with ladies and gentlemen, sit- 
ting and standing. Both the balcony and gallery were crowded 
to their utmost capacity, and many hundreds were turned 
away from the door for want of room. The stage was occu- 
pied by some of our most prominent citizens, including State 
and United States oiiicials. Judges of the Courts, members of 
the bar, and many well-known business men." 

The Evening Times said: 

"Pike's Music Hall was over-crowded last night by the 
choicest of our citizens, who assembled to protest against th« 
exclusion of the Bible from the public schools." 

The Evening Chronicle prefaced its account of the meeting 
as follows : 

" Pike's Music Hall was literally jammed with citizens last 
night, anxious to add their influence to that of the friends of 
the Bible to prevent the abolishment of that book from the 
public schools. Citizens of all classes and creeds were present, 
making one of the most intelligent and earnest audiences ever 
assembled in this city. On the stage were seated Bishop 
Mcllvaine and a large number of other distinguished ministers 
2 



10 

of the gospel, as well as leading business men and citizens of 
wealth." 

Eufus King, of the Cincinnati Bar, and formerly President 
of the School Board, presided over the meeting, which was 
opened with prayer by Eev. Dr. Wiley. 

Addresses were then delivered by Messrs. Eufas King, Wm. 
M. Eamsey, Geo. E. Sage, and Eev. B. W. Chidlaw. 



11 



ADDRESS BY RDFUS KING, ESQ. 



Ladies and Gentlemen:— You all know the purpose of this 
meeting, and it is unnecessary, therefore, to take time in open- 
ing or explaining it. The Bible— which for two hundred 
years has lain at^the very foundation of that great American 
Institution— the Public School— the foundation of all modern 
civilization, and of all our hopes, present or future, has recently 
been assailed, as you are all aAvare, by a sudden and most ex- 
traordinary coalition which has taken place between opposite 
elements in the School Board of this city. I beg leave to re- 
turn my thanks that, though unable, from recent illness, to say 
much, I am permitted to participate in this great demonstra- 
tion of protest against that movement. And more than all, 
do I desire to express my rejoicing at the manifestation which 
I see before me here to-night, that the people of Cincinnati 
are waking up to the importance of the question which has 
been silentlj* at work here, in one shape or another, for nearly 
thirty years. 

I should not bo afraid for one, my fellow citizens, even it 
education were the soulless thing, the mere one-sided polish of 
the intellect, which the philosophers now agitating this move- 
ment say it is, to meet them on their own ground. For, I 
would say to them, you may, if you please, sum up all the phi- 
losophy, and all the ethics, from the earliest age; you may take 
your Confucius, your Zoroaster, your Socrates and Plato — yes, 
and all the modern lights that assume to have eclipsed every- 
thing of the past; sum up their choicest sayings, and what are 
they altogether compared to that one fragment of the Gospel 
according to St. Matthew— the Sermon on the Mount. If I 
wanted to teach a child nothing but common honesty, I should 
select the precepts of the Bible beyond every book that ever 
was written. 

Nay, more, my fellow citizens : I will go further, and I will 
say that if the object of these gentlemen is not to teach mor- 
ality, if I wanted a book which contained lessons of the 
"purest English, undefiled," I should take the Holy Bible as 
the best text book that can possibly be found for that study m 
our public schools-. ' 

I trust I shall be pardoned for this view of the question. I 
am, for the purpose of argument, laying aside for one moment 
that which you and I all believe— the sacred and divine char- 
acter of the book. And if this measure takes effect, what a 



12 

gpoctacle will it be to your children — what a reproach ! How 
will it be explained to them hereafter? 

But, my fellow citizens, suffer me to go one step further, and 
I am done, when I say what I deem to be the real aspect of 
this question. If I am not mistaken in the signs, which I have 
had opportunities of observing in this matter, there is more 
than meets the eye; and the question here is not the mere su- 
perficial one, as some of our people, I am sorry to say — and 
among others a very influential journal — treat it; not the mere 
question whether the Bible shall continue to be used as a text 
book in our public schools — I tell you, my friends, that the real 
question at issue in this matter is, shall the public school sys- 
tem continue? What is the meaning of it? If this coalition 
which now seeks to expel the Bible from our public schools 
shall succeed in the real object which they are gradually com- 
ing at, the crushing out of all religious instruction, what will 
be the result? Who does not see that righteous men of all 
sects and creeds will then unite to tear down such a system. 
It will be far better, as one of the parties in this scheme 
proclaims, to have no jjublic schools at all, than that they 
should be the " godless " institutions which they would thus 
become. 

I hope that I shall be understood in regard to this point 
without taking further time to unfold it. It is my firm beliel 
that the result of the measure now before the School Board, if 
it takes effect, will be to bring about a state of things which 
these gentlemen may not have contemplated; but I believe it 
will be just what I have stated. 

Without trespassing further upon your time, therefore, in 
tracing out what I suppose to be the tendency of this scheme, 
if it succeeds, I say in conclusion, that as to that section of 
this combination who complain — and, certainly, it is a most 
extraordinary complaint — that their conscience is offended by 
the use of the Bible in the schools — that Bible which is the 
coi-ner-stone of our American institutions, as every man knows 
who has ever read the Declaration of Independence, or even the 
Constitution of our own State, which, in so many words, avows 
that religion, morality and knoAvledge are essential to good 
government, and confesses that wo are "grateful to Almighty 
G-od for our freedom." I say, if these gentlemen arc reallj' 
offended in their consciences in regard to this matter, still it 
would be far wiser and bettor to listen to the counsel of a man 
whose proverbs have been celebrated as a law among our peo- 
ple — 1 mean Dr. Benjamin Pranklin, who, though a liberal, 
refused to give countenance to Voltaire's assaults upon reli- 
gion, and put it upon the ground, which was rebuke enough to 
answer all upon this question, that if the world were bad as it 
is with religion, what would it be without it ? 

And now, ladies and gentlemen, I beg leave to introduo« 



13 

some gentlemen who are prepared to address you in regard to 
this matter, and from whom, I presume, that we shall have the 
pleasure of hearing more precisely than I have stated to you, 
and, certainly, much better, the merits of the whole question. 

At the close of Mr. King's address, Mr. A. E. Chamberlain 
moved that a committee of five be appointed on resolutiouB. 
The motion was agi-eed to, and the following gentlemen were 
appointed as the committee ; A. E. Chamberlain, Dr. William 
Clendenin, "W. S. Kennon, J. Y. Larkin, and C. W. Rowland. 



14 



ADDRESS BY WM. M. RAMSEY, ESQ. 



The first recorded event in the history of this country was 
its dedication to Christianity. When Columbus beheld the 
shores of the New World, he called all hands about him, and, 
in great joy, with deep humility, offered "solemn thanks and 
supplication " to Almighty God. We do not learn that any of 
the sailors complained of this as an offer of violence to their 
conscience. The immortal navigator rejoiced in the belief that 
he was about to realize the hope by which he had been ani- 
mated far more than by any mere motives of personal ambi- 
tion — the hope that he might be the discoverer of a continent, 
and the founder of a nation that should be the chosen home of 
Christianity. But the time had not yet come in which the 
foundations of American nationality were to be laid. It was 
necessary that the men appointed to that great work should 
be trained in the school of the sixteenth century. 

At the close of that eventful period — with vivid recollection 
of its history, and clear impression of its teaching, qualified 
thereby for their high mission — the founders of this nation 
came. 

Their first act was to go upon the land, and, kneeling before 
high Heaven, dedicate it a second time to the Ruler of the 
Universe. 

Do you doubt that these men intended to found a Christian na- 
tion? Every syllable of colonial history attests it. They sought 
for themselves and their posterity civil and religious liberty; 
they knew that they were the necessary attendants of each 
other — that one could not exist without the other — but it was 
religious liberty that was uppermost in their minds : it was 
religious liberty of which they had been deprived in the land 
of their nativity : it was religious liberty of which they ex- 
perienced the greater need. 

What did they mean by religious liberty ? The conflicts of 
the sixteenth century were not between infidelity and Chris- 
tianity, or between Christianity and paganism, but between 
different forms of Christian worship. That which our ances- 



15 

tors were intent upon making secure, therefore, was the right 
to worship God according to the dictates of the conscience of 
each individual worshipper, and BOt the right to those who had 
no conscience to blaspheme the name of God. Hence it was 
provided by legislative enactment in some of the colonies, that 
no man should be questioned or disturbed on account of his 
relio-ion, provided always that his religion was the religion of 
the Lord Jesus Christ. That was their idea upon the subject 
of religious freedom. And this was not a Protestant idea. 
This provision, in all its directness, was incorporated into the 
laws of Maryland in 1G49, at the instance of the Eoman Cath- 
olics in the colony, the Protestants graciously assenting, and 
neither Catholic nor Protestant dreaming that there was any 
third party that had any voice in the matter. What do you 
suppose would have been the answer of one of those sturdy 
men if a member of the Cincinnati School Board had been 
there to tell them that their laws were intolerant? _ 

By religion, our ancestors did not mean Mohammedanism, 
Buddhism, or Free Thinkingism. They meant Christianity. 
'' Our ancestors," said Mr. Webster, " established their system 
of Grovernment on morality and religious sentiment. They 
were brought hither by their high veneration of the Christian 
religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. 
They sought to incorporate it with the elements of their so- 
ciety, and to diffuse its influences through all their institutions, 
civil, political, social and educational." 

A Christian nation was thus founded; and, although there is 
no dii-ect recognition of Christianity in the organic law of the 
country, and although it has been judicially determined that 
it is not a part of the common law of the country, as it was a 
part of the common law of England, it has yet exercised a 
controlling influence in forming the character of our institu- 
tions, and in directing their administration. And although 
there have been present, at all times, unbelievers, and although 
a large part of the people of each succeeding generation have 
refused to yield practical obedience to its precepts, it has not 
hitherto been made the subject of attack. There have been 
no hostile acts of a public nature directed against it. Assaults 
upon it have been made by individuals acting alone and upon 
their own responsibility, and these have been harmless. 

And this leads me to say, that it is because the proposition 
to exclude the Bible from the Common Schools of Cincinnati 
comes from a spirit of hostility to the Bible itself, and is only 
to be regarded, therefore, as an open, public act of aggression 
upon it, that those who love the Bible have been startled into 
the most profound attention to the subject. 

Am I justified in the assertion that the motive of this propo- 
sition is only one of hostility to the Bible itself? Let us see. 
In the outset we are calkd upon to contemplate a singular 



16 

©oiiieideuce — if it be a mere coincidence — tliat a lai^e number 
of gentlemen have found their way into the School Board who 
have been endowed by their Creator — whoever thej^ may con- 
ceive that to be — with that superior degree of intellect which 
enables them to discover that the Bible is a cheat and a delu- 
sion — the same Bible that deceived Milton and Sir Wm. Jones ; 
that Walter Scott pronounced "the Book;" that Benjamin 
Franklin and Sir Isaac Newton believed in ; that John Harvard 
and Jonathan Edwards revered as the word of God — although 
it has deceived nearly all the master minds of past ages, it can 
not deceive them. I remark that the number of these gentle- 
men in the School Board is in singular disproportion to theij- 
number in the community, as compared with the nunibor of 
those who accept the Bible as the word of Crod. 

A little scrutiny of the actual proceedings of the School 
Board, touching this matter, discloses another coincidence. It 
is suggested that a large body of children and j^oiith, the ott'- 
spring of a particular denomination of Christians, is excluded 
from the jDublic schools, and that measures ought to be taken 
to secure their attendance; and measures looking to that end 
are proposed. Simultaneously the proposition to exclude the 
Bible from the schools is made ; and although the propositions 
are entirely distinct from and independent of each other, they 
go out to the public as parts of one whole. The impression is 
created in the public mind that the Bible in the schools is au 
obstacle to the entrance of this body of children and youth, 
and that, for that reason, the change is sought. It goes out, 
therefore, as a question of conscience, and it is advocated as a 
measure demanded by that principle of liberal toleration which 
has always been so fully recognized in this country, an between 
difterent religious bodies. 

What a transparent cheat is here ! What Catholic authority 
in this city has uttered a syllable that would afford any ground 
for the conclusion that should this measure be adopted, a sin- 
gle Catholic child would thereby be enabled to enter the 
schools? On the contrary, how could the declaration of their 
recognized authorit}^ be made more distinct and nnequivocal 
to the effect that it would operate no change in their position ? 
" We can not, " says the Archbishop of Cincinnati, with a 
frankness that clears him of any susjiicion of complicity in 
the deception, " We can not recognize any system of education 
of which religious instruction is not a part." And the Catho- 
lic journal published in this city has uniformly declared that 
its people ask neither more nor less than the division of the 
school fund, to the end that they may conduct their own 
schools. 

No, ray friends, this proposition does not come from the 
Catholics. It comes from those who class the Bible with the 
Koran and the Vedas — and who bear a hostility to the Bible 



17 

that they would not feel to the Book of the Moor, or that of 
the Brahmin. 

There is here, then, no question of freedom of conscience. 
These gentlemen make it their boast, as I understand it, that 
they have no conscience — relying entirely upon their superior 
intellectual endowments for guidance in all the affairs of life, 
even as they have no faith, except faith in themselves, with 
which they are happily supplied in abundance. 

I do not hesitate to say, that if Eoman Catholic parents 
should bring their children to the doors of the school houses, 
and say that they desired admission, and that, while they ad- 
hered to the religion of Jesus Christ, they differed with other 
denominations as to the authenticity of certain parts of the 
Bible in use in the schools, and that a suspension of the read- 
ing of the Bible in the schools would enable their children to 
enter them, a very different question would be presented than 
the one with which we are now dealing. But that question 
will never arise. The division of the school fund is the ultima- 
tum of the Catholics — and I may remark, in parenthesis, that 
such division will never be made. 

Having ascertained the source from whence the proposition 
to exclude the Bible from the schools comes, and having ascer- 
tained that it comes from the infidel, the discussion might well 
end. 

At all events, he ought to be called upon to give such reasons 
for the change as would address themselves to the enlightened 
conscience of the people of a Christian community. Are any 
such reasons offci*ed? 

It is always incumbent upon the party proposing a change t^3 
point out the old evil which is to be removed, or the new good 
which is to be attained. Is it shown that any person has been 
injured in mind, body or estate, by the presence of the Bible in 
the schools? Many of you, my friends, are in the habit of vis- 
iting the poor, the sick and the imprisoned. Have you ever 
been told by any wretched man or Avoman that Bible-reading 
or Bible-teaching brought him or her to destitution and disease? 
Have you ever been told by the poor criminal, immured 
within the gloomy walls of the prison-house, that it was Bible- 
reading and Bible-teaching that made him first an oiitlaw, and 
then a captive in chains? Nay, rather, has he not told you 
that it was the want of these ? ISTor have the opponents of the 
Bible cited any such instances. 

Only yesterday, the daily journals contained accounts of a 
startling deed of blood, perpetrated in the streets of this city 
on the evening previous. At the conclusion of some ac- 
count of the individual who had wielded the knife with such ter- 
rible effect, the solution of the whole transaction was inadvert- 
ently given ; the unfortunate man had spent the early part of 
the evening in attendance upon the meeting at Greenwood 
Hall. There was no Bible there. 
3 



18 

I do not understand that they challenge its literary excel- 
lence, or question the purity of its moral precepts. It enforces 
the obligations of the domestic, social and political relations of 
mankind by the highest sanctions. Conjugal love and duty 
are upheld, parental affection and care, with filial reverence and 
obedience, are enjoined ; love for the neighbor, and regard for 
his interests, with charity for all men, are clearly taught. The 
duties of citizenship, the careful rendition to Cssar of that 
which belongs to him, obedience to law, participation in the 
public defense, and the payment of taxes, are here directed. 
Are any of these precepts pernicious, or are they so regarded 
by any part of our people ? We have heard no such complaint. 

We have seen, then, that the claim put forth in behalf of the 
Catholic is without his authority; that there is no question of 
conscience involved, and that no evil proceeds from reading the 
Bible in the schools. We may safely conclude, therefore, that 
it is proper to continue to read it. 

Do not misunderstand me, however. It is because the Bible 
is the Word of God that I would have it read in the schools as 
elsewhere ; and let us have no disguises about it, that is the 
reason it is read there. And speaking of intolerance, it seems 
to me it is the infidel who is here giving an exhibition of intol- 
erance. He refuses to tolerate even the presence of the Bible, 
without assigning any other reason than that it is the Bible. 

But we are told that the Constitution of the State forbids the 
reading of the Bible in the schools, and the seventh section of 
the First Article is cited and relied upon. Now, I belong to a 
political party that is peculiarly sensitive upon the subject of 
Constitutional infractions, and with that sensitiveness I am in 
the fullest sympathy; because a constitution once made is to be 
obeyed, until it is amended or abolished. I have, therefore, ex- 
amined this section with some care. It is as follows: 

"All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship 
Almighty God according to the dictates of their own con- 
science. No person shall be compelled to attend, erect or sup- 
port any place of worship, or attend any form of worship, 
against his consent; and no preference shall be given by law 
to any religious society, nor shall any interference with the 
rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be 
required as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be in- 
competent as a witness on account of his religious belief. Eeli- 
gion, morality and knowledge, however, being essential to good 
government, it shall be the duty of the General Assembly to 
pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in 
the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, 
and to encourage schools and the means of instruction." 

It might be suggested that this objection comes very late. 
The principle embodied in the section which I have read is as 
old as the history of the country. It was incorporated into 



19 

the Federal Constitution, by way of amendment, in 1789; the 
Constitution of Ohio, in force from 1802 to 1851, contained a 
similar provision, and the Bible has been read in the public 
schools from the date of their establishment ; and it is not until 
September, 1869, that we are admonished that it is in violation 
of the organic law. This is a singular circumstance, but it does 
not determine the question. 

It might be suggested, also, that if this regulation is in viola- 
tion of the Constitution, and an invasion of private right, any 
person aggrieved can go into the Courts and obtain redress, in 
the form of a perpetual injunction against it ; and, if any doubt 
exists upon the subject, it should be determined by the Courts ; 
because, if the Bible is unconstitutional in Ohio, the sooner we 
find it out the better, and we will at once have the Constitution 
amended. 

But I am unable to perceive the difficulty here that so dis- 
turbs our friends in the School Board. Let us glance at the 
seventh section : 

1. It is claimed that reading the Scriptures in the schools 
converts the schools into places of public worship, maintained 
at public expense ; and, 

2. That reading a version of the Bible which is not the ver- 
sion which is recognized by some sects, is giving a preference 
to the denominations that do recognize the version read as the 
true one. . 

The second objection is scarcely worthy of attention. The 
provision which forbids the giving of a preference to any sect 
is in terms a restriction upon legislative action. No such prefer- 
ence is to be given by law. If it had proceeded further, and 
declared that no such preference should be given by any person 
or body corporate, and if it could then be shown that the read- 
ing of the Bible was, in the contemplation of the Constitution, 
giving a preference to a religious sect, the argument would be 
complete. 

It is only the first objection that can be made to appear even 
plausible. And it is only necessary to apply to it the most 
familiar rules of interpretation in order to dispose of it. 

First — The construction must be a reasonable one. And is it 
reasonable to infer that the people of Ohio, at the date of the 
present Constitution, intended to frame a constitution that would 
bear the construction here claimed for it? What is there in the 
history of the State that would justify the opinion that the Bible 
has been regarded in the State as the property of any sect? 
What is there in the history of the State, the public utterances of 
her statesmen, or the known opinions of her people, that would 
justify the opinion that they were capable of prohibiting even a 
simple recognition of Christianity in the schools, or elsewhere ? 
"What declarations were made in the Constitutional Convention 
itself that bear upon the subject? 



20 

Why, on the third day of the Convention, before it had com- 
pleted its preliminary business, it resolved, by an overwhelming 
majority, to have its daily sessions opened with prayer; and, 
when it had completed its labors, it did not deem it proper to 
adjourn until, at the request of the President, the Eev. James 
Prestley, a Christian minister, invoked God's blessing upon their 
labors. 

And this very seventh section sets out with the familiar declar- 
ation, that it is the privilege of man to worship God according to 
the dictates of his conscience, and concludes with the annonnce- 
ntient of the truth, that religion is essential to good government, 
and that it is, therefore, to be fostered. Such a Convention, 
representing such a constituency, entertaining such individual 
sentiments, never could have adopted such a provision as this, if 
it will bear the construction claimed for it. 

Second — Another familiar and valuable rule of interpretation 
leads us to inquire, when we would construe a prohibitory law, 
"What is the evil sought to be avoided?" And this gives us 
the whole meaning of this seventh section. The evil which the 
framers had in view, and against which they hei^e jwovided, was 
the evil of an established church. It is the same provision that 
is made by the First Article of the Amendments to the Consti- 
tution of the United States, although couched in different lan- 
guage. The language of that instrument is as follows: "'Con- 
gress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" Precisely what is em- 
bodied in this expression has always been well understood. 

Does the reading of the Bible, in simple, decent recognition of 
its divine authority — reading it without note or comment — trans- 
form the school house into a church? Does it make the school 
house a place of worship? It costs nothing. It imposes no 
additional burdens upon the people. It takes the teacher's time, 
do you say? So did prayer take the time of the Constitu- 
tional Convention. Was the Constitutional Convention a place 
of worship maintained at the j^ublic expense at the moment it 
was enacting the seventh section ? Is the State House at Colum- 
bus a place of worship ? The deliberations of the Legislature 
are pi'eceded by prayer daily. Each regiment of your army is 
provided with a chaplain, as well since as before the adoption of 
the Constitution. Is your camp or your barracks a place of 
worship maintained at public expense? The exemption of church 
property from taxation has always prevailed unchallenged, and 
to that extent is the burden of public support shifted to the gen- 
eral property of the State. 

It is no answer to this to say that all sects are alike favored in 
this respect, because there are owners of taxable property who 
belong to no sect. The existence of these things, as a pai-t 
of the recognized policy of the State and Nation, reduces to ab- 
surdity the claim which is put forth with reference to this section. 



21 

It is simply an attempt lo enlarge its operation by a strained 
construction, unwarranted by its language, and contradicted by 
its history, and the general history of the State and nation. 

And, in this connection, I would ask those Christian men and 
women who are indifferent to the subject now immediately be- 
fore us, or deem it of secondary importance, if they are willing 
that the removal of the Bible from the schools shall be the inau- 
guiation of a system of change that shall include in its operation 
the banishment of the chaplain from our Legislature and from 
the army — the denial of the right to hold religious services in 
prison-houses and reformatory institutions — that shall exclude 
all sacred literature from public libraries — that shall stifle the 
voice of prayer in public assemblies — that shall place church 
property upon the tax duplicate — thus putting institutions purely 
benevolent in their character upon the same footing with com- 
mercial enterprises ? If you are not prepared for these changes, 
and others of like character, resist the first assault ! Stand fast 
upon the out-post, for there must the real defense of the citadel 
be made ! 

1 would respectfully call the attention of the School Board to 
the fact that they are acting in a representative capacity ; that 
they are considering a proposition that was not in issue before 
the people at the date of their election, and that until an expres- 
sion of public opinion at the polls can be had, affirmative action 
ought not to be taken upon it. 

I will hazard another suggestion. There ought to be no sys- 
tem of education dissociated from religious instruction. In this 
respect the Archbishop is right. I do not know whether those 
who propose the exclusion of the Bible are the enemies of the pub- 
lic school system or not. It would, perhaps, be uncharitable to 
admit the suspicion ; but I do not hesitate to say, that the hour 
that shall witness the final banishment of the Bible from the 
public schools — if such an hour shall come — will also witness the 
end of the system itself. 

This is a Chi-istian land; ours is a Christian civilization. 
Whatever is valuable in our form of Govern ment, or commen- 
dable in our social state, is due to the influence of the religion of 
J esus Christ. Our seminaries of learning, our hosj)itals of mercy, 
our asylums for the distressed and the unfortunate, our common 
schools, are its offsprings and its monuments. 

God forbid that infidelity shall cast its blight over this fair 
land, and alienate it from His care ! In such an event, our fate 
may be read in the history of a republic that was subjected to 
such an experience. 

" Open the annals of the French nation," said Lamartine, 
"and listen to the last words of the political actors of the drama 
of our liberties. One would think that His name was unknown 
in the language. The rei^ublic of these men without a God has 
been quickly stranded. The liberty won by so much heroism 



22 



and so much genius has not found in France a conscience to 
shelter it, a God to avenge it, a people to defend it against the 
atheism which is called glory. _ AH ended in a soldier. An 
atheistic republic can not be heroic." 



ADDRESS BY GEORGE R. SAGE, ESQ. 



Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen: — The movement 
to exclude the Bible from the Common Schools of the city of 
Cincinnati was set- on foot by resolutions offered in the School 
Board on the 6th day of September, 1869, which read, as 
follows : 

'■'■ Resoloed, That religious instruction, and the reading of religious books, 
including the Holy Bible, are prohibited in the Common Schools of Cin- 
cinnati, it being the true object and intent of this rule to allow the chil- 
dren of the parents of nil sects and opinions in matters of faith and wor- 
ship to enjoy alike the benefit of the Common School Fund. 

" Resolved, That so much of the regulations on the Course of Study and 
Text Books in the Intermediate and District Schools (page 213, Annual 
Eeport) as reads as follows: 'The opening exercises in every department 
shall commence by reading a portion of the Bible by, or under the direction 
of, the teacher, and appropriate singing by the pupils,' be repealed." 

The entire rule which it is proposed to repeal is not given ia 
the resolutions offered. There is an addition, which I will read 
from the rejDort of last year : 

"The pupils of the Common Schools may read such version of the Sacred 
Scripture as their parents or guardians may prefer, provided, that such 
preference of any version, except the one now in use, be communicated 
by the parents or guardians to the principal teachers, and that no notes or 
marginal readings be allowed in the schools, or comments made by the 
teachers on the text of any version that is or may be introduced." 

When, and under what circumstances, at whose suggestion, 
and upon what assurances this provision was adopted by the 
School Board of Cincinnati, we shall presently see. You will ob- 
serve that the rule provides that any parent may direct what 
portion of the Scriptures shall be read by his children. If he be 
a Catholic, and prefer the Douay version, all that is required is 
that he so signify. If he be a Jew, and prefer the Old Testament, 
all that is required is that he so state. Now, it is proposed to 
wipe out these provisions, and at the same time to exclude, not 
merely the Bible — because the proposition is broader than that — 



24 

t 

from the Common Schools of Cincinnati, but to prohibit religions 
instruction and the reading of religious books, including the 
Bible, so as to accommodate the schools to all sects and opinions. 

Now, what does this mean ? It means, as I said, not merely 
the exclusion of the Bible, but the expurgation, from every text 
book in the Common Schools, of every religious sentiment. It 
means the abolition, from the text books of the schools of Cin- 
cinnati, of every recognition of Christianity, or God Almighty, or 
conscience, or of accountability to the Supreme Being. It means 
— to put it in a single sentence — to make the schools of Cincin- 
nati schools of atheism. And I say, my fellow citizens, that 
it is the most outrageous and damnable proposition that has ever 
been made in respect to our Common Schools. 

I have been requested to speak here to-night as a lawj^er, upon 
the points at issue in this controversy, and I propose to speak, 
therefore, after the fashion of lawyers, which is to prove what 
they say as they go on, and not ask anybody to credit anything 
which they may utter unless made clear by argument, or verified 
by authority. 

I can best introduce what I have to say by referring to some 
flxcts in the history of the administration of the Common School 
department of this city, and calling your attention to some very 
curious deductions from those facts. 

The first general law for the maintenance of Common Schools 
in the State of Ohio was passed on the 5th of February, 1825. It 
was framed by Nathan Guilford, of this city, and to Cincinnati 
is due the honor and the credit of the parentage of the Common 
School system of Ohio. 1 trust it may not be that here the first 
black, damning disgrace upon the system shall fall. 

The schools of Cincinnati were not set on foot upon any per- 
manent basis until the year 1829. I have here a volume contain- 
ing the reports of the School Board from the year 1833 to the 
year 1857. I find that in the Fifth Annual Eeport for the year end- 
ing on the 30th of June, 1834, a full list of the text books used in 
the schools appears, and among these books is the Holy Bible. 
It is printed in the report, " The Bible or the Testament, without 
notes." 

In the Tenth Annual Eeport, for the year ending June 30th, 
1839, the Board, Elam P. Langdon, President, says: 

" The Bil)]o and New Testament, without notes or comment, are read 
in all the scliools, and their moral precepts inculcated as principles of 
conduct and duty. Ko sectarian teachings are permitted, and no requisi- 
tions are made of the pupils that come in conflict wilh the religious tenets 
of their parents, or of any religious sect or denomination." 

The same year the Committee of the City Council on Common 
Schools reported (Tenth Annual Eeport, page 20) : 

" Knowledge being power, it should be directed to useful purposes, to 
insure which the mind must be under the influence of religious principles, 



25 

as fully as the body Is under the influence of the mind. These principles, 
heinq derived from the Bible, it should be a school book, not to be opened and 
read in a gloomy, careless and indifferent manner, but as the word of God, 
presented to the minds of the children in its truly endearing sublimity, 
that they may see it as the spirit of wisdom, directing to order, obedience 
and true freedom." 

In the Thirteenth Annual Eeport, for the year ending June 30, 
1842,— Edward D. Mansfield, Acting President,— on page 7, may 
be found the following : 

"The reading of the Bible, without comment, continues to be part of our 
instruction ; we may add that no difference of opinion has hindered this practice, 
or interfered with those who would drink at that pure fountain of truth 
and knowledge." 

Here it appears that for thirteen years—from 1829, when the 
schools were established, until 1842— the Bible was read in the 
public schools of the city without objection from any quarter. 
And yet during ?11 that time, all the sects and opinions that now 
exist here had their adherents in Cincinnati, and the schools, as 
appears also from the report of 1842, were attended by a very 
large proportion of the whole number of children in the city. 
What are we to infer from this significant acquiescence for so 
long a time, — what can we infer, but the recognition, by all sects 
and classes, of both the right and propriety of a practice, which, 
we shall presently see, dates from the foundation of the Common 
School system? And wo shall see, also, that such_ and so long 
continued recognition, is of great value in construing the rigly; 
when disputed. 

But shortly after this report was published, sectarian objec- 
tions to the text books used in the schools, and to books in the 
district libraries, were made. They came from the highest 
authority of the Catholic Chvirch. 

My brother Eamsey has put the responsibility of the present 
movement upon the infidels in the School Board. I am not dis- 
posed to lift one particle of it from their shoulders. All that he 
has said I indorse, and I may perhaps have something to add 
to it before I sit down. But I am not disposed to limit the re- 
sponsibility to the infidels in the School Board. I think it proper 
to assign to the authorities of the Catholic Church their share of 
responsibility in the matter. When I see the representatives of 
any church, in or out of the School Board, in close alliance with 
the champions of infidelity against the Bible, I will not overlook 
the fact. I prefer to recognize the relation which they have vol- 
untarily assumed, and give them the full benefit of their associa- 
tion ;— -just as I should if I found a professed clergyman wearing 
the uniform of the devil, judge him by that fact, and not by his 
title or pi'ofessions. 

I find that on the 29th day of August, 1842, Mr. Perkins, the 
President of the Board, stated that the authorities of the Cath- 



26 

olic Church had personally informed him that certain objectiona 
existed on the part of the Catholics, both to the English and 
German Common Schools of Cincinnati, viz : First, that the books 
used contained obnoxious passages ; second, that the Catholic 
children were required to read the Protestant Bible and Testa- 
ment; and, third, that the district libraries contained objection- 
able works, to which the Catholic children had access without the 
knowledge of their parents. 

Now, you will observe that there is nothing said there about 
the exclusion of the Bible from the schools. What did the 
Board do? They resolved, immediately and unanimously: 

"First — That the President of this Board he requested to inform Bishop 
Purcell that he is invited by the Board to examine the boolcs used 
in the English Common Schools and the German Common Schools, or to 
cause them to be examined, and have all the obnoxious passages pointed 
out. 

•' Second — That no pupil of the Common Schools be required to read the 
Testament or Bible if his parent or guardian desire that he may be ex- 
cused from that exercise. 

• " Third — That no child be allowed to take books from the district libraries 
unless his parent or guardian, at the beginning of each session, make the 
request, in writing or in person, that he may have that privilege." Eeport 
for 1843, page 25. 

Could anything have been more fair or complete than this 
action of the Board? Did it not fully and entirely meet every 
objection which had been presented ? 

We shall find, presently, that although twenty-seven years 
have elapsed, not one single obnoxious passage has ever been 
pointed out by Bishop Purcell, or by any one on his behalf. 

In the Twentieth Annual Eaport, for the year 1849, there is 
this reference to the reading of the Bible in the schools : 

"The reading of the Holy Scriptures, without note or comment, is re- 
quired as a daily exercise in our schools. In the present conditioa of the 
world, when vast political and moral changes are constantly occurring, 
the principles of the Bible can be the only reliance for the safety of the 
individual, as well as the masses ; they alone can infuse strength and 
power into the social system, fully expand the intellect, and teach, as no 
other code of ethics ever taught, or can teach, that wo have alone fulUlled 
our mission on earth when we have learned that by elevating the minds of 
our fellow men, we have in the highest sense exalted our own." 

That report was signed by Judge Storer, then President of the 
Board of Trustees. And the next year I find another repoi't by 
Judge Storer : 

"As heretofore, the Holy Scriptures are daily read, and in the higher 
sections the Bible is a class book. While every sectarian feeling is re- 
buked, and no interference, even remotely, permitted with the rights of 
conscience, the ethics of the Bible, the manly spirit it encourages, the 
freedom of thought it maintains, are not only enforced, but, we believe, 
are illustrated by the personal character of the teachers." 



27 

Now it has come to pass that the Bible, and every religious 
sentiment, are attacked and denounced as " sectarian," and the 
latter-day Solons of the Cincinnati School Board have discovered, 
in their wisdom, that atheism alone is countenanced by the Con- 
stitution, and is alone consistent with public policy and public 
education. Have we so soon forgotten the teachings of those 
who founded our Common School system, and made it what it is? 

Appended to the Report for this year is the report to the City 
Council of the Committee on Common Schools, in which occurs 
this paragraph : 

" The Bible is used as a text book in all the schools. This we esteem 
right and proper; any government based upon the precepts of the Bible 
can not be very far wrong; and aside from its religious teachings, it con- 
tains, we think, the best code of laws ever published. It is read without 
note or comment, thus leaving the pupil free to make up his own opinion, 
without any sectarian influences whatever : we conceive it a matter of 
little consequence what religious creed the pupils may adopt in riper 
years ; the only object of their instructors is to make them good men and 
women, and useful members of society." 

So said the City Council in 1850, by adopting this report. 

N'ow we come to the Twenty-second Annual Report of the 
Board for the year ending June 30, 1851. This report also was 
made by Judge Storer, and it closes with this paragraph, to 
which I call your special attention, in connection with what 
occurred in 1852 : 

"In all the schools the Bible is a class book. In the opinion of the 
Board it never can be dispensed with in the education of the young; and 
while the right of private judgment is freely admitted, and inviolably 
preserved, the volume that "teaches us our responsibilities here and our 
destinies hereafter, can not but be regarded as Heaven's best gift to man." 
Eeport, June 30, 1851, page 11. 

Passing on to June, 1852, we find that Dr. Jerome Mudd was 
a member of the School Board. He was also a member of the 
Catholic Church, and he introduced certain resolutions in regard 
to the Holy Bible. Now, remember, that in the year 1842, the 
Bishop of the Catholic Church of this Diocese had been requested 
to point out the obnoxious passages of which he complained, — 
that every other objection he had then made had been met with 
perfectly satisfactory and complete action by the Board, — that he 
had not pointed out one passage, or one syllable of one of the 
obnoxious passages to which be referred. Now, in 1852, what 
was the next move ? It was this. Dr. Mudd came in with these 
resolutions: 

"Resolved, 1. That as it is the opinion of this Board that the Bible never 
can be dispensed with in the education of the young (see Report, June 30, 
1851, page 11), the existing rule requiring the edition of the 'American 
Bible Society' be so altered and amended as to authorize the introduction 
of the edition of the Bible used by the Catholics, as also that preferred by 
the Jews. 



28 

^^ Resolved, 2. That, from and after the commencement of the next scho- 
lastic year, all such children as are by law entitled .to the benefits of the 
Common School Fund instruction of said city, be and are hereby author- 
ized to take to the public schools, and read the edition of the Bible se- 
lected by their parents or guardians. 

" Resolved, 3. That the professors and teachers in said schools shall be, 
and are hereby authorized to read before their classes, such edition of the 
Bible, and without reciting the notes or comments, as may comport with 
their views of religion." 

That was what was then offered by the representative of the 
Catholic Church. 

The matter was referred to a committee, and the committee 
presented a report, signed by every member but Dr. Mudd, 
against the resolution. The doctor presented a minority report. 
Nevertheless, the Board adopted the resolutions offered by Dr. 
Mudd, upon assurances which were deemed authoritative, — as 
Eufus King, then President of the Board, states in his annual 
report for that year, — that thereby all differences would be re- 
moved, and the children of all denominations could, without 
objection, or any sacrifice of principle, attend the public schools. 
A rule was then made that each child might read such version of 
the Scriptures as its parents or guardian preferred, — precisely 
the rule in word and letter that it is now proposed to repeal by 
the votes of most, if not all, the Catholic members of the Board, 
and this, too, although that rule was adopted, as I have said, 
upon the solicitation of the only Catholic member of the Board, 
in 1852. 

It is especially noteworthy, that in the resolutions then offered 
on behalf of the Catholics, the Bible is expressly recognized as 
indispensable in the education of the young. It is another fact 
worthy of mention, in this connection, that from the date of 
the adoption of the rule to this day, the Douay version of the 
Bible has, but in one instance, been introduced in any of the 
Common Schools of the city. 

i!^ow, what does the President of the School Board for 
that year, my honored friend, Eufus King, say officially upon 
this subject? Here is his statement, to be found on page 11, of 
the Twenty-fourth Annual Eeport : 

" So long ago as August, 1842, upon a representation to the School Board 
that objections were held by the Bishop of the Eoman Catholic Church of 
this Diocese, to certain text books and library books used in the public 
schools, he was invited, by a formal vote of the Board, to examine the 
text books and point out all that was obnoxious in them, and it was ordered 
that no pupil should be permitted to read the Bible, or use the district 
libraries, if such should be the request of the parent. It is understood 
that this invitation, meant in good faith, received no response or attention 
from the Bishop, now Archbishop Purcell. 

'•Early in the past year, a concession in another form, to those who were 
offended by the exclusive use in school of the version of the Bible pub- 
lished by the American Bible Society, was moved, providing in effect that 
pupils may use any version of the sacred Scriptures which may be pre- 



29 

ferred by the parent or guardian. Coming from a quarter such as to 
induce a considerable majority of the Board to expect that hy its adoption 
they might effect a happy termination of all past differences, and a return 
of a large class of pupils who have gradually been withdrawn from the 
public schools, this motion was adopted, notwithstanding the adverse re- 
port of a large majority of the committee to whom it had been referred. 

" All ground of complaints being thus removed, or a way opened under 
the vote of August, 1842, for completely removing them, it was hoped that 
dissatisfaction would end, and that the children of all denominations of 
our people would be re-united in the open common halls of our public 
schools. Such, however, was not the result. 

" No such re-union has taken place, nor has any mode or opportunity 
been afforded to this Board for correcting objections, if any there be, to 
the text books, libraries, or system of instruction used in our schools. 
These proffers, on the contrary, were followed, last spring, by assaults and 
misrepresentations more violent and unjustifiable than any heretofore 
made upon our schools. We are, therefore, constrained to infer that no 
union of action or system is intended or desired by the assailants of the 
public schools upon any terms but such as are incompatible with the prin- 
ciples and usages which thus far have s'jistained and governed the free 
schools of this country. If a large portion of the children of this city 
are deprived of the blessing of a free education in our District and High 
Schools, it can not be said that the fault rests upon the schools themselves, 
or upon the school authorities." 

Thus, we see, twice every concession asked by the Catholic 
Church was granted by the School Board of Cincinnati; but in- 
stead of the result bein^ what was expected, the attacks upon the 
Board were more violent and unjustifiable than ever before, and 
the very next year movements were made to establish Catholic 
schools. 

Now, after the lapse of some seventeen years, we have another 
proposition, which comes in its first shape with a suggestion that 
the Catholic authorities would lease their f^chool houses to the 
Board five days in the week, reserving the right to occujiy them 
on Satui'day and Sunday, for the religious instruction of their 
children. When it appeared probable that this proposition, 
offered by Rev. Edward Purcell, would be accepted, the Arch- 
bishop, his brother, stepped in and interposed his veto. Then 
came the ultimatum of the Catholic Church, that the education of 
their children can not be trusted entirely to the civil authorities, 
that it must bo conducted under the control of the Church, and 
their proposition is, that a portion of the school fund — they say 
" their share," of the school fund — but I tell you, my fellow citi- 
zens, that they have no "share," in the sense in which they use 
the term, — that a jjorticn of the public fund shall be transmitted 
to them, to be placed under their control, for the education of their 
children in the faith of the Catholic Church. Now, I have not 
one word to say against the faith of the Catholic Church, or any 
other church. I am willing to concede, for the sake of the argu- 
ment, that they are all equally good and sound. It makes no 
diflPerence in the discussion of the question; but this I have to 
say, when the Catholic, or any other church, plants itself against 



30 

any American institution — when it proposes that we shall recast or 
remold our institutions, or our Constitution, to serve its purposes, 
then I say, " Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther." And when- 
ever the Pope of Eome, who, we have been informed, is to be 
consulted in this matter, shall presume or attempt to dictate upon 
what terms iDopular education shall be conducted in the State 
of Ohio, we will see whether that is constitutionaL 

Eight here, let me refer again to the report of Mr. King, and 
read his admirable statement of objections to the proposition to 
parcel out the school fund, which was in 1859 before the public, 
but was first presented to the School Board in 1869, by the 
response of the Archbishop to the Committee of Conference : 

"But the right of conscience and equality, secured by our laws, do not 
contemplate that every sect or party is to dictate its own terms of partici- 
pating with others in the common privileges, but merely that each may 
have and enjoy the same privileges and immunities which are granted to 
others. The general good requires, and no principle of liberality forbids, 
that our public schools should have a strong infusion of the moral and 
religious element in their course. And there can be no doubt that enough, 
and the most essential part of this element is common ground to all, so 
clear and distinct from sectarianism on every side, as that by easy precau- 
tions it may be introduced and taught in our public schools without offense 
to any, who mean to be pleased at all. There is ample room above and 
beyond all sectarianism for the best moral and religious training. Those 
who refuse to meet upon this common ground, and would sever and divide 
the system, in order that every segment may teach its peculiar tenets at 
the public expense, surely produce, if they do not aim at, the subversion 
of the whole system of education." 

It is said that no mistakes are made by the authorities of the 
Catholic Church. I beg to differ. They have made the most ter- 
rible mistake in dealing with the question of the Bible in the 
schools in the city of Cincinnati, in this year of our Lord 1869, 
that they have ever made. They will come to understand, in due 
time, that there are citizens and electors in the great State of 
Ohio, outside of the city of Cincinnati, whose voice will be heard 
and votes cast in this matter, wnth no uncertain result. I don't 
stand here to-night to beg any favors at their hands. I do stand 
here to say that the men of the School Board, who are supporting 
the Bible exclusion movement, are acting against the known 
wishes of their constituents, and they will be called upon, if 
they persist, to answer to their constituents. There may be bad 
men enough in the Board, bold and defiant enough to deliber- 
ately, knowingly and wilfully misrepresent their constituents by 
putting this measure through ; but let them remember that since 
the lowering of the flag at Sumter, we liave learned that a tem- 
porary advantage does not by any means indicate final success. 

When Dr. Mudd ofi"ered his resolution for the introduction of 
different versions of the Scriptures in the schools, the committee 
reported against it. Dr. John A. Warder, Chairman of the com- 
mittee, seems to have been gifted with more foresight than 



31 

any other member of the Board. After speaking of the im- 
practicability of using different versions, he said, " The next 
thing we shall hear will be an objection to reading the ordinary 
version of the Bible in the hearing of Catholic children, and at 
last it will even be alleged that it is unconstitutional to read 
the Bible at all in the schools." The Dr. evidently thought that 
was reducing the proposition to an absurdity, for such a thing 
never had been heard of. But, my friends, the world moves, and 
constitutional discoveries are wonderfully abundant in these lat- 
ter days. As my Brother Eamsey says, it has been found of late 
that the Holy Bible is unconstitutional in the State of Ohio. Judge 
Storer and Rufus King had been members of the Board, and 
Judge 0. M. Spencer had been one of the Visiting Committee. 
They were all in their day, and in their plain way, good conimon 
law and constitutional lawyers ; but what they fiailed to perceive 
or understand, has been vouchsafed to the great modern constitu- 
tional expounder of the School Board. Now, it is proclaimed 
that it is not only against policy, but dii-ectly in the teeth 
of the constitution, to read to the children of the Eepublic the 
Holy Bible, — the very charter of our liberties, — our great Chris- 
tian constitution. I do not propose to-night to defend the Bible. 
I believe it, as the inspired revelation of Almighty God to man ; 
and this audience believes it, and this nation believes it. But this 
I say: 

First — That the suppression of the Bible is the destruction of 
religious liberty, and that religious liberty is the only sure foun- 
dation of civil liberty. 

Second — That the exclusion of the Bible from the public 
schools is the first step toward the suppression of the Bible. 

Third — That it is in exact accordance with the spirit and true 
meaning of the constitution that the Bible shall be read in the 
Common Schools ; and. 

Fourth — That it is against the true meaning and spirit of the 
constitution to exclude it from the schools. 

The provision of the Constitution of the United States, which 
is supposed to bear upon this question, is as follows : 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, 
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech 
or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 
petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 

This is the first of ten amendments proposed at the first ses- 
sion of the first Congress, and finally ratified by the constitu- 
tional number of States on the 15th of Dec, 1791. The Consti- 
tution itself was adopted Sept. 27th, 1787. 

What is an establishment of religion which is here prohibited ? 
I cannot better answer than in the words of Mr. Meachem, in his 
report from the (Committee on the Judiciary to the Houise of 
Representatives, at Washington, March 27th, 1854, against the 



32 

abolition of the office of chaplain, wherever it existed by au- 
thority of the United States, — a much stronger case than the use 
of the Bible in the schools as a text book. He says an establish- 
ment of religion " must have a creed, defining v^hat a man must 
believe; it must have rites and ordinances, which believers must 
observe ; it must have ministers of defi.ned qualifications to teach 
the doctrines and administer the rites ; it must have tests for the 
submissive, and penalties for the non-conformists. There never 
was an established religion without all of these." How perfectly 
absurd to claim t'aat that provision is infi'inged by the reading 
of the Bible in the Common Schools. The other phrase of that 
clause, which prevents Congress from making any law prohibit- 
ing the free exercise of religion, is simply a barrier against infi- 
delity and intolerance, and it was insj^ired by reverence for the 
Christian religion and the Holy Bible upon which it rests. 

Now, it is a recognized rule of construction, that in giving to a 
constitutional clause its meaning, — as the Supreme Court has de- 
cided in the case of the State ot Rhode Island vs. the State of 
Massachusetts, in 12 Peter's Reports, Supreme Court of the 
United States, — we must look to the history of the times and 
examine the state of things existing when it was framed and 
adopted. That proposition has been affirmed over and over again, 
until it is no longer open to be questioned. 

What, then, was the state of fact when the Constitution was 
framed? The common schools of America had been founded 
more than 125 years before the Declaration of Independence, 
and we find that universally the reading of the Bible and reli- 
gious instruction formed a part of the system of education therein. 
We find that the old Continental Congress, which had charge of 
our aftairs during the Revolution, provided that there should be 
imported from Great Britain at the public expense, for distribu- 
tion among the citizens of this land, 20,000 copies of the Bible. 
We find that the first act of the first Continental Congress, was 
to provide for the appointment of a chaplain, and he came in 
the next morning and read that magnificent thirty-first Psalm 
of David, beginning, — 

" In Thee, Lord, do I put my trust ; let me never be ashamed; 
deliver me in Thy righteousness;" and ending, "Be of good cour- 
age, and He shall strengthen your heart, all ye that hope in the 
Lord ;" and then, in prayer, invoked the blessing of Almighty 
God upon the labors of that assembly. We find that every reg- 
iment of the American army of the Revolution was provided with 
a chaplain, at the public expense. We find, that when George 
Washington was inaugurated first President, as he took the oath of 
office, he reverently bowed his head and kisssd the Holy Book, 
which these men in the School Board of Cincinnati propose to 
eKclude from the schools as unworthy to be read in the hearing 
of our children. And when the official ceremonies of the inau- 
guration were concluded, he proceeded, with his Cabinet, to the 



33 

church, to recognize the dependence of himself and his coun- 
selors, and the nation, upon Almighty God. We find that almost 
immediately afterward, Congress, by a unanimous vote, passed a 
resolution requesting the President to issue a proclamation of 
thanksgiving to Almighty God; and that Washington, in his 
proclamation, issued in accordance with that resolution, declared 
that no people on the face of the earth had more occasion to re- 
cognize the guiding care of the Almighty than the American 
people. We find, in a word, that all through the struggle for 
our liberties, the Bible was recognized, and Christianity was re- 
eoo-nized, as a part of our governmental system — not any par- 
ticular sect, not any particular construction of the Bible — but 
Christianity, in its broad, comprehensive sense, embracing and 
comprising all sects and all denominations. 

Now, let me say right here, that there are only two classes of 
nations — those that are Christian, and those that are heathen or 
infidel ; and the heathen and the infidel belong together. There 
is no neutral or middle ground. It will not do to say that this 
nation has nothing to do with religion or Christianity. It is 
either Christian or infidel, and we know it is not infidel. And the 
man who proposes to make infidelity the rule and Christianity 
the exception, in the affairs of this nation, is a more deadly enemy 
to the government than the vilest rebel who attempted by force 
of arms to destroy it. 

Six years after the adoption of our Constitution, in France 
was tried the experiment of a republic founded on infidelity. 
The historian tells us that the leaders of the municipality of Paris 
expressed their determination to dethrone the King of Heaven as 
well as the monarchs of earth. It was announced that God did 
not exist, and that the worship of Reason was to be substituted in , 
His stead. The services of religion were universally abandoned, 
pulpits were deserted, the burial service was no longer heard — 
the sick received no communion, the dying no consolation. The 
Sabbath was obliterated — the village bells were silent. Infancy 
entered the world without a blessing — old age left it without 
a hope. On all the public cemeteries the inscription was placed, 
" Death is an Eternal Sleep." France was red with blood ; mur- 
der and death were everywhere, and infidelity rioted in the full 
fruits of its terrible teachings. 

Now, let us take the construction of the Constitution which 
has been placed upon it by another lawyer, who was at one time 
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States — Judge 
Story — whose works are quoted, upon the other side of the water 
as well as this, as high authority in matters of law. In his com- 
mentaries upon the Constitution, in regard to this right of con- 
science, or the establishment of religion, he says : 

■' The promulgation of the great doctrines of religion ; the heing, and at- 
tributes, and providence of one Almighty God ; the responsibility to Him 
for all our actions, founded upon moral freedom and accountability ; a fu- 
4 



34 

ture state of rewards and punishments; the cultivation of all the personal, 
social and benevolent virtues, — these never can be a matter of indifference 
in any well-ordered community. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive how 
any civilized society can well exist without them. And, at all events, it is 
impossible for those who believe in the truth of Christianity, as a divine 
revelation, to doubt that it is the special duty of Government to foster and 
encourage it among all the citizens and subjects. This is a point wholly 
distinct from that of the right of private judgment in matters of religion, 
and of the freedom of public worship according to the dictates of one's own 
conscience." Section 986, 

How does this comport with a proposition to carefully exclude 
the Bible, and all religious instruction, and the reading of reli- 
gious books, from the public instruction of the youth of the 
nation? 

In section 991, Judge Story says : 

"The real object of the amendment was, not to countenance, much less 
to advance Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Chris- 
tianity ; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent 
any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to a hierarchy 
the exclusive patronage of the National Government." 

That is to say, the object of that provision of the Constitution 
was to prevent the recognition by the State of any church as the 
authorized ecclesiastical establishment of the State. All were to 
fetand upon a perfect level and equality. But the Government, 
then, as now, from first to last, recognizes the churches all com- 
bined, representing the grand, comprehensive system of Christi- 
anity, upon which our government is founded, as the great repre- 
sentatives of Christianity, and a proper and essential part of the 
State. 

Now, let ns pass to the ordinance of 1787, for the government 
of the territories lying north-west of the Ohio river, adopted on 
the 13th day of July, nearly three months before the Constitu- 
tion itself: 

The eighth act of the first Congress was to re-enact the ordi- 
nance, having modified it to make it conform to the Constitution, 
but not changing the portion which I shall quote. There was 
but one vote in the negative upon the adoption, and that negative 
was not to Article 3, to which I call your attention. It reads as 
follows : 

"Eeligion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good govern- 
ment and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education 
shall forever be encouraged." 

Will any one undertake to deny that the Christian religion is 
here meant? And, keeping in view the fact that for more than 
one hundred and twenty -five years the Bible had been used as a 
text book in the Common Schools, does it require argument to 
prove that the reading of the Bible, and the inculcation of the 
fundamental truths of Christianity, as a part of a public system 



35 

of education, were intended, by classins: religion, morality and 
education together, as necessary to good government, and as an 
all-sufficient reason why schools should be encouraged ? Yet 
Thomas Jefferson, whom the free-thinkers claim as one of their 
number, was the father of that ordinance, and he recognized the 
duty of the Government to see that religion should be fostered 
and protected as a saving power in the State. And think you 
that that first Congress, when it adopted that ordinance, did 
not understand the meaning of the Constitution? Madison, Ells- 
worth, and Sherman passed directly from the hall of the Con- 
vention to the hall of Congress. Did they not know what was 
constitutional ? 

The Constitution of Ohio, of 1802, contained the provision of 
the ordinance above quoted, word for word, and so does the Con- 
stitution of 1851, which is now in force ; but the Constitution of 
1802 provides against interfering with the rights of conscience; 
and, by the Constitution of 1851, it is made the duty of the Gen- 
eral Assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious de- 
nomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public 
worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction ; 
but as to these provisions, it is sufficient to refer to the remarks 
of Judge Story, already cited. 

But there are other provisions of the Constitution of Ohio, 
which it is claimed are against the use of the Bible as a text 
book in the schools. They are contained in the same section 
as the provisions above referred to (Section 7, Article 1), and 
are as follows : 

"All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty 
God according to the dictates of their own conscience. No person shall be 
compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain 
any form of worship against his consent ; and no preference shall be given 
by law to any religious society ; nor shall any interference with the rights 
of conscience be permitted." 

Now, no other than a Christian nation would ever make these 
provisions a part of the organic law. The declaration in this 
solemn form, of the right to worship God according to the dictates 
of conscience, implies not only that that worship is proper, but that 
its unrestrained exercise is of the highest importance to the State. 
But what is the true construction of this right of conscience? 
Let us refer to history again. Its assertion grew out of two con- 
ditions of fact which existed in the Old World before the settlement 
of the New. In certain countries of Europe, called Catholic, 
where the Pope, by his Bishops, stood behind the throne and 
directed the affairs of the State, it was made unlawful for any person 
to read or construe for himself the Holy Scriptures. The interpre- 
tation of priests and monks was to be accepted by the people in 
place of the saered text itself; and even to be in possession of the 
Bible was counted a more flagrant offence than to have in hand 



36 

counterfeit coin of the realm. In other countries, called Pro- 
testant, the subject was permitted, it is true, to read the Bible, but 
if he ventured to give to its teachings an interpretation at vari- 
ance with that prescribed by the recognized church establish- 
ment, he must seal his temerity with the blood of martyrdom. 
The Catholic and the Protestant — one as bad as the other — al- 
ternately waged the most unrelenting warfare upon each other, 
and upon all unbelievers. One of the results was that the Puritans 
were driven to the shores of New England; and even their his- 
tory, says Judge Story, "has furnished a chapter as full of dark 
bigotry and intolerance as any that could be found to disgrace 
the pages of foreign annals." Roger Williams, with a little band 
of followers, was driven to the wilderness, and, establishing the 
little colony of Rhode Island, declared as a fundamental and 
essential principle of liberty, that every man had the right to read 
and interpret the Bible for himself, and to act upon his inter- 
pretation, without molestation by the Government or any in- 
dividual. That is what liberty of conscience means. It means 
the very right to read the Bible which members of the School 
Board of Cincinnati say it is unconstitutional to read. 

But it is said that our Supreme Court has decided that, "under 
the provisions of our Constitution, neither Christianity nor any 
other system of religion is a part of the law of this State." Very 
well. It was so decided, and the decision is sound law. But 
what does it mean? The question was, whether a contract en- 
tered into on Sunday was therefore void. It was held that the 
Statute of Ohio which prohibits hunting, fishing, common 
labor, etc., on Sunday, did not invalidate the contract, and that 
it was not void at common law, nor could it be declared void 
because contrary to the teachings of Christianity. That is what 
the decision means, and that is all it means. It has nothing 
whatever to do with the subject in hand, and I venture the asser- 
tion, that no one would be more surprised at the use made of that 
decision in the School Board than Judge Thurman himself, who 
pronounced it. Nobody pretends that a recovery could be 
had in any of our Courts for an injury resulting from the viola- 
tion of a right depending upon the Golden Rule or the Sermon 
c n the Mount, unless also a statutory provision or a recognized 
proposition of the common law could be produced in support of 
the action. 

But are you going to compel the hearing of the Bible by the 
children of those who object from conscientious promptings? 1 
answer, the resolution of the 29th of August, 1842, excusing any 
pupil, if its parent or guardian desire, never has been rescinded, 
and is in force now as fully as when adopted. 

And now, in what shape is the question presented? The in- 
fidels propose to make our schools schools of atheism — to banish 
all religion and religious teachings — which is to establish atheism. 
The Catholics propose to strike the Bible from the list of text 



87 

books in the public schools at which the Protestant children are 
educated, and then to continue their own schools, and draw from 
the common fund "their share" — as they phrase it — and edu- 
cate their children in the Catholic religion at the public expense. 
Do you not see precisely what that would result in ? The Catho- 
lic religion would be taught in this State of Ohio and in this 
city of Cincinnati at the public expense, and no other religion 
would be taught at all in the public schools ! That is to say, the 
Catholic Church is proposing to incorporate into our system of 
public schools here precisely the dogmas of the Old World, against 
which Ave fought the battles of the Eevolution. 

Well, now, what would be the result of this, if it could be 
accomplished ? It w^ll not do to say that the Catholic may take 
his share of the public fund and educate his children, and not 
say that the Presbyterian may take his share, and the Episcopa- 
lian, the Methodist and Baptist each his share, and so of the 
other sects. More than that. It will not do to say that the in- 
fidel may not take his share, and teach infidelity'at the public 
expense. If we grant one, we must grant all the rest. What 
would be the result? The school fund would be broken into 
fragments. Instead of that magnificent system, which is the 
pride and glory of the State of Ohio, we would have the ruins of 
a system broken into fragments and destroyed. And I charge 
that that is really the ultimate object and intent of these men. 
That is what it means, and they have sense enough to know the 
natural consequence of their own acts. It is proper, therefore, 
that they should be held accountable for them. 

IN'ow, I say that we can not afford to give up this Common School 
system, and we are not going to give it up. Next to the Bible, 
it is the stronghold of this nation. The churches in the cities, 
in the villages, and in the country places, and the school houses, 
and the colleges, are the fortresses of our country. The children 
in the public schools are the children of the Republic, and it is 
the right and the duty of the State and of the citizens to see 
that they there learn, by seeing the Bible before them, and hear- 
ing it read every day, that it is a free book in every nook and 
corner of the Republic. 

I do not pi'opose to occupy your time by dwelling upon the 
value of the Common School system; but if you will turn to the 
last chapter of the Life of General Francis Marion, of South Car- 
olina — one of the great captains of the Revolution, — a little book 
written by his comrade. General Horry, edited by Weems, and 
published in 1824 — you will find one of the most remarkable 
tributes on record to the value and importance of common 
schools. Shortly after the termination of the war, the idea of 
establishing schools at the public cost in South Carolina was 
abandoned on account of the expense and consequent unpopu- 
larity of the measure. General Marion, when he was informed 
in advance of this probable result, with great earnestness declared 



his belief that the chastisement of the Almighty would be visited 
upon that people if they neglected to provide for the instruction 
of the masses. After contrasting the torjnsm in the Southern 
Colonies — which he chai'ged to their ignorance, and, but for which 
he declared it was generally believed the war would have termi- 
ninated shortly after the surrender of Burgoyne — with the un- 
faltering patriotism of JSTew England, the land ot free schools, he 
uttered the prediction, that, if the means of education were not 
freely bestowed by the Government, ambitious demagogues would 
rise, and the people, through ignorance and love of change, would 
follow them, — that vast armies would be formed, bloody battles 
fought, and the country devastated with all the horrors of civil 
war. The Southern States did fail to provide popular education, 
and the history of the last ten years has brought upon the nation 
the most terrible and literal fulfillment of this prophecy, at a cost 
of two million lives and thousands of millions of dollars. And 
it is emphatically true, that the ignorance of the masses enabled 
the bad leaders of the South to bring upon the country the 
horrors of civil war. 

I say, then, we can not afford to do without this system of free 
schools, nor can we afford any thing that will in the least impair 
its strength or eflSciency. It becomes us to see that it be pre- 
served in all its integrity. I said that these men had made a 
mistake, and I repeat it. Two years hence we shall be called 
upon to revise our State Constitution. If there be any possible 
doubt about the constitutionality of the use of the Bible in the 
schools, which we do not for one moment admit, the people of 
the State of Ohio will then be heard from. They are already 
aroused, and will fully protect themselves and their children from 
the threatened invasion of their rights. Cincinnati is not alone 
in this struggle. She has the sympathy of the people of the en- 
tire State; and, thank God ! this noble State of Ohio, first-born of 
the ordmance of '87, never yet has proved false to the teachings 
of the Fathers or the institutions of the Eepublic, and the time 
has not yet come when she will. If it become necessary for the 
electors of the State to pass upon this question, we will see that 
by the votes of the freemen, and, if need be, by the Protestant 
freemen, of the State of Ohio, any proposition to change our 
system, or to have it recast to suit ideas not recognized by 
the founders of the Republic, — whether that proposition come 
from Catholic or Protestant, Jew or infidel, — will be driven like 
chaff before the whirlwind, or consumed as stubble before the fire. 

Rev. B. W. Chidlaw was then introduced to the audience, and 
made a very brief, but effective speech, of which we have no re- 
port. 

A. E. Chamberlain, from the Committee on Resolutions, re» 
ported the following, which were unanimously adopted, amid the 
greatest enthusiasm : 



39 

'' Resolved, 1. That the attempt to exclude the Bible from the 
Common Schools of our city, deserves the unqualified disappro- 
batioa of this meeting. 

" 2. That we regard the attempt as a disturbing blow at the most 
precious and vital elements of our civilization, a gratuitous as- 
sault upon the inspired source of all religion and morality. 

" 3. That we earnestly jDrotest against any action of the School 
Board on this imjiortant question, until it shall first have been 
submitted to the people at the next spring election of the mem- 
bers of that Board." 

The meeting then adjourned. 



CINCINNATI GABETTE STEAM PRINT. 



